In this context, those professionals who facilitate communication between different languages and cultures are needed more than ever. They must be able to understand the information and knowledge that fuels an ever-changing society and be capable of adapting themselves and evolving together with this society. Language service providers, such as translators and interpreters, as well as other related services, such as cultural mediators and technical writers, face a great challenge to meet the demanding requirements of today’s global market. Due to the changeable nature of the digital era, both in terms of knowledge and technology available, these professionals must continuously develop their information competences and cope with new realities (Sales and Pinto, 2011).

This challenge is closely related to meeting the information literacy standards required for higher education professionals (Bundy, 2004a): being ready to adopt and make an efficient use of current and future ICT; being capable of determining the nature and extent of the information needed; being aware of the ways to access, critically evaluate and process the information needed effectively and efficiently; and being capable of organising and reusing knowledge generated in specialised contexts to accomplish a specific purpose. The need for including IL in the Higher Education curricula has been thoroughly discussed in academic circles with a particular emphasis on its key role in the EHEA setting, which has led to developing and applying academic policies, both at local and European levels (Basili, 2008; Virkus, 2012). Being that higher education is the most suitable context in which developing IL, most research efforts have studied it from the educational perspective and applied approaches have tended to focus on the development of instrumental library and computer skills in these settings (Bawden, 2001; Virkus, 2003; Lloyd, 2010, p. 37).

In addition, the academic library has also traditionally been a common player in developing the core skills revolving around IL (Mutch, 1997; Andretta, 2005, p. 5; Gómez-Hernández, 2010) and the largest production of research about IL applied to a working setting has been that coming from Library and Information Science about librarians (Virkus 2013, p. 250). Some scholars have already noted that the discussions of librarians tend to revolve around the issues of their profession, without much emphasis on building theory or addressing the contexts beyond their particular context. Lloyd goes even further and includes IL researchers among those who are somewhat “trapped within the discursive formation of [the librarians’] profession” and states that this profession is “more focused on developing generic library skills, rather than understanding the nature of information literacy practice and the ongoing social processes that enable it” (2010, p. 181). In fact, as stated by Virkus, “during the last decade [2003–2013] our understanding of IL has sifted from skills-based approaches towards a broader and more social understanding of information practice” (Virkus, 2013, p. 255).

ICTs are undoubtedly a big ally in pursuing this goal. It is also true that the breadth and availability of technology tools and resources are wider than ever; and that higher education institutions are continuously required to make efforts to catch up with latest developments and to train people who might be able to use the latest ICT available. However, as pointed out previously, the very same constantly changing nature of the knowledge society requires a continuous learning effort and the capacity of adapting ourselves to the realities of every working environment. Technological innovation and information overload are two of the main challenges for multilingual information professionals. If they want to remain competitive, they need to make the most of their resources and find innovative solutions that enable them to deliver cost-effective quality services by not only developing their computer literacy, but also a wider information literacy competence.

The first published definition of the term IL is attributed to Paul Zurkowski, the president of the US Information Industry Association, in a report written in 1974 (Zurkowski, 1974). He defined information literates as “people trained in the application of information resources to their work [who] have learned techniques and skills for utilizing the wide range of information tools as well as primary sources in molding information solutions to their problems” (ibid. p. 6). Therefore, Zurkowski’s view of IL was already focused on developing the ability to cope with the challenges of the information age within the workplace. Nevertheless, most of the efforts towards theorising about IL have been made in the context of higher education, which is undoubtedly the natural and most suitable place to introduce any training that contributes to the development of information-related competences of future educated professionals. However, as initially pointed out by Zurkowski, this development continues in the working practice environment and is influenced by the specific context of each workplace and the social processes that take place in it. This setting presents a greater level of complexity and diversity (Kuhlthau and Tama, 2001; Oman, 2001; Lloyd, 2003; Kirton and Barham, 2005) and yet, there is a scarcity of construct models or frameworks that conceptualise the practice and activities around IL in the workplace, that gain insights into settings other than the educational arena, or that investigate the effect of the collaborative nature and human interaction (Lloyd, 2010, p. 71). Thus, a detailed level of analysis is required if an understanding of IL within the workplace is pursued, since as Lloyd further states “[l]earning about the requirements and practices of work occurs at both formal and informal levels [and] requires access to both explicit and tacit sources of information. Information literacy may not follow the systematic research-based process that is advocated by the higher education setting” (ibid).

In the HE and library contexts where IL has been more intensively discussed and researched (Kirton and Barham, 2005, p. 365), the most frequently used definition is that of the American Library Association (ALA) Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to “recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, 1989). Therefore, according to ALA, an information literate individual should be able to:

If, as Zurkowski already stated, IL is observed within a working setting, other elements can be taken into consideration in defining this concept. For instance, Cheuk expanded this view to involve source and end users of information to define IL as “a set of abilities for employees to recognize when information is needed and to locate, evaluate, organize and use information effectively, as well as the abilities to create, package and present information effectively to the intended audience” (Cheuk, 2002). Lloyd also broadened the scope of IL to understand it as a socio-cultural practice and process and provided the following definition:

Another important issue arises from the traditional simplification of IL to mere training or instruction in finding information or developing ICT skills to a broader perspective of information literacy that involves all aspects of information use (Mutch, 1997; Bawden, 2001, p. 225; Kirton and Barham, 2005, p. 369). In this sense, authors such as Catts and Lau (2008, p. 14) have identified the essential element that differentiates Information Literacy from ICT skills as “the transformation of information into knowledge” and the use or transmission (dissemination) of this knowledge created by the individual, as opposed to merely receiving and transmitting information using ICT. This does not mean, nevertheless, that the capacity to access and to use ICT may not include some elements of information literacy.

One of the consequences of this renewed interest in IL issues was the development of several theoretical frameworks to understand IL, such as the Seven Faces of Information Literacy in Higher Education (Bruce, 1997), SCONUL’s Seven Pillars of Information Literacy, first presented in 1999 and subsequently revised on several occasions until 2011 (SCONUL, 2011), or the The Big Blue proposal (JISC, 2002), jointly reached by UK universities that were part of the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). In addition, a number of standards were developed worldwide to address IL requirements. Namely, those defined by the US Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2000) and their adaptation to the Australasian context made by the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), namely the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy (ANZIIL) framework (Bundy, 2004). A comprehensive revision of IL programs all over the world was published in the work edited by Bruce et al. (2000). In addition, Andretta dedicates a whole chapter to compare ACRL, ANZIIL and SCONUL’s frameworks (Andretta, 2005, Chapter 3) and concludes that the three understood IL as the common process proposed by ALA (i.e. “involving the initial acknowledgement of the need for information, followed by competences in locating, evaluating and using that information effectively”), while the main difference rested in the linear knowledge creation process represented by SCONUL, opposed to the “recursive knowledge construction approach” of ACRL and ANZIIL.

Kuhlthau and Tama (2001) conducted an exploratory study on the information seeking process of lawyers to investigate their use of sources, systems and services to accomplish their work. This research highlighted the complexity of developing tailored information systems that supported the tasks beyond the routine ones and for very particular purposes. It also showed that given the overwhelming amount of information lawyers had to work with, they needed to filter it through multilayered information systems that provided a range of functions, including organising office files, searching the Internet and handling email, and supporting the construction of cases for trial by accessing a wide range of information sources.

Kirk (2004) studied information use among senior managers from two public sector organisations in the cultural industries and identified five dimensions of IL present in this setting and that highlight the complexity of IL and the “social use of information not only in relation to information sources but also in relation to the development of new knowledge and insights” within the culture and values of the organisation (idem, p. 2). Lloyd also studied IL within a working setting as a socio-cultural practice, but outside the environment of knowledge workers. She conducted research about the information practices within the emergency services sector, namely firefighters (Lloyd, 2004) and ambulance officers (Lloyd, 2007), which allowed her to gain insights into the relationships between the roles of the workers of this community of practice and accessing, sharing and interpreting information.

In discussing how IL is seen from the business world, O’Sullivan (2002) advocates further communication and closer involvement between corporate information professionals and the managers and staff of their organisations. To do so, she provides a comparison of information literacy perspective and the business community understanding of information and knowledge management as a source of success. Although she acknowledges that IL scholars and organisations use different languages, she also highlights that “the business community is in a heightened state of awareness about the value of information and knowledge” (idem, p. 7) and reports on evidence of IL competence demand from organisations to enable effective knowledge management among their workers.

Another interesting contribution to this discussion comes from Cheuk’s white paper prepared for UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy (Cheuk, 2002). In this document, she presents nine real life examples, based on companies’ case studies, of a lack of IL skills in the workplace that can have a negative effect organisations’ efficiency, namely:

In relation to these, she reports on several best practices that were followed by the companies under study to promote IL, although she warned that these practices were “not yet being widely adopted in business organizations” and that “most companies [were] still in the infancy stage of promoting information literacy.” They included:

Cheuk’s cases were based on large organisations, but the issues highlighted in her white paper are also a common flaw in the small business sector (Rosenberg 2002).

Focusing on higher education training from the perspective of information competences, IL didactic proposals have been best accepted when based on models and standards that guided their application (Loertscher and Woolls, 2002). Some examples are Kuhlthau’s model (1991), focused on the process of searching information and on how users face the different stages of a research process; the Big Six Model (Eisenberg and Berkowitz, 1990), widely used for presenting a simple systematic framework addressed to students in order to solve information related problems in six steps; and Markless and Streatfield’s model (2007), which provides an IL framework based on the processes of users’ connection with, usage of, and interaction with information, driven by learning-related actions at each stage and the choice and reflection on the strategies and results of each process.

In the particular case of translator training (as well as other MIPs), scholars such as Pinto and Sales focused on the information competence acquisition within this particular community by conducting research from a user-centred perspective. They followed a holistic approach to diagnose IL needs and to develop training strategies accordingly that took into consideration three key groups of agents: translation trainees in HE (Pinto and Sales, 2007), teachers and academics (Pinto and Sales, 2008), and professionals (Sales and Pinto, 2011). In this effort, a theoretical model, InfoLiTrans (Information Literacy for Translators) was developed (Pinto and Sales, 2008) and provided outputs such as the InfoLiTrans Test. This test was devised to assess the acquisition of the information competence of translation trainees by diagnosing their proficiency in the four main areas of information search, assessment of information, information treatment, and communication and dissemination of information (Pinto et al., 2014).

IL has also been present in the theoretical models of translation competence, such as the models put forward by Kelly (2002, p. 14) and the PACTE group (2005, p. 610), where an “instrumental sub-competence” is listed among the sub-competences that are specific to the translation competence. It relates to the use of documentary resources and ICT applied to translation, and was considered as “a further characteristic of expertise in translation” after conducting additional empirical research (PACTE group, 2009, p. 227). Göpferich further validated this sub-competence as part of her translation competence model, based on PACTE’s (Göpferich, 2009, p. 21) and acknowledged a general assumption about this matter among scholars (ibid., p. 12). Other scholars have termed this competence as “documentary competence” (Palomares Perraut and Pinto Molina 2000, p. 100; Gonzalo García, 2004, p. 276).

Similarly, the European Master’s in Translation (EMT) expert group defined a set of competences for professional translators, as experts in multilingual and multimedia communication, that included IL-related competences such as the “information mining competence,” the “thematic competence” and the “technological competence” (EMT expert group, 2009). More recently, Massey and Ehrensberger-Dow also recognised these applications of IL-related competences to the field of translation, although they did not deem it to be linked to translation competence models (Massey and Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011, p. 194). In fact, they found that there is a lack of studies addressing IL and translation when they state that “[t]he relative weight accorded to information literacy by translation practitioners, teachers, and scholars has yet to be underpinned by a significant body of research” and that “[t]he questions of how and whether translators use the far wider range of electronic and non-electronic resources, both linguistic and extra-linguistic, now at their disposal […], and of how novices and professionals differ in this regard, remain to be investigated in detail” (idem., p. 195). This claim for further empirical research motivated their study Translation Tools in the Workplace, aimed at exploring ICT and research tools and resources’ impact on professional translation processes, and took into consideration some previous studies, such as Fulford (2001), Nord (2002) and Pinto and Sales (2008), among others, although they did not refer to research reported in Reuther (1999), Fraser and Gold (2000), Fulford (2002b), Höcker (2003), Fulford and Granell-Zafra (2003; 2004; 2005; 2008), Lagoudaki (2006), Dillon and Fraser (2006), or Alcina et al. (2007).

In addition to these initiatives, there are more studies in progress that are trying to investigate how IL affects translation from an information behaviour angle, such as Enríquez-Raído’s (2011) study on developing web searching skills in translator training, or an ongoing research work conducted by Sales, Pinto and Granell about the information search process in documentary tasks when translating (Forthcoming). It is definitely a must to foster and conduct more empirical research about IL and translators to inform and improve their training, although it may also be necessary to adopt an integrated view of information literacy for translators, whether it is related to translation competence models or not, that builds upon the vast body of IL literature, as already done by Pinto and Sales, and that puts together all previous efforts to research IL-related issues in the translation context.

As a result of this growing interest in improving IL among the translation community and applying the training proposals arising from research, several efforts to transfer research contributions to real training practice have already seen daylight. Some initiatives are focused on fostering and improving training provided at HE institutions and some others also try to provide a continuous training assistance in consonance with the IL paradigm and leading towards enabling a successful lifelong learning. Among the former, there are many universities using student-centred methodologies to develop information competences in their translation degrees, either through specific courses on documentary research, as a transversal competence present in ICT-related subjects (i.e. courses on IT applied to translation, terminology, and resources for translators) or most subjects or modules devoted to translation in specialised domains (OPTIMALE 2012).

In Spain, for example, “Documentary Research Applied to Translation” (Documentación aplicada a la traducción) has been a compulsory core course of Translation degrees’ syllabi since these HE studies were initiated in 1991, a need that was further highlighted in the development of new degrees under the EHEA framework (ANECA, 2004). Several specialised translation master degrees also offer specific programmes including information-related skills, required for all students regardless of the specialisation, as pointed out by the OPTIMALE Academic Network (Optimising Professional Translator Training in a Multilingual Europe), which involves 70 partners from 32 different European countries (OPTIMALE 2012). One example of the latter is the 6 ECTS credit subject “Professional Practice, Medical Terminology and Medical Information Sources” (Práctica professional, terminología y fuentes de información) at the Master’s Degree in Medical and Healthcare Translation Master at Universitat Jaume I (Department of Translation and Communication at the Universitat Jaume I 2013).

In addition to this formal presence in HE syllabi, some didactic proposals for improving IL among translators are also trying to bridge the gap between translators and information at different levels of expertise: early undergraduate trainees, undergraduate trainees in subsequent courses during their translation studies, students of master courses on specialised translation/interpreting/cultural mediation, or throughout MIPs’ professional life. A good example of this is ALFINTRA¹ (Information Literacy for Translators, from the Spanish name Alfabetización Informacional para Traductores), a didactic proposal that applies the InfoLiTrans theoretical model, developed by Pinto and Sales (2008). It is a multifaceted approach that puts together a set of elements (namely, knowledge, ICT, resources and processes) with competences and skills to provide an e-learning portal based on web resources. The design of ALFINTRA drew on the results obtained from the InfoLiTrans project, in which a number of competences were deemed to be reinforced (namely, information management, organisation and planning, and ICT-related skills) to measure the acquisition of information competences and aptitudes by students, but also to diagnose them and to solve the problems that have been detected in the learning process. The resulting tool is an autonomous e-learning platform that includes information literacy fundamental knowledge addressed to the translation community and is structured according to the issues around information management needs, including contents, activities, FAQ-like sections, multimedia materials, diagrams, and concept maps, in addition to a selection of resources and complementary bibliography.

Another contribution of ALFINTRA, resulting from the expert input provided by translation and interpreting lecturers during the InfoLiTrans project, is its compilation of special-purpose resources aimed at addressing the needs of the different fields of specialised translation and interpreting (i.e. legal translation, scientific and technical translation, medical translation, audiovisual translation, localisation, literary translation), apart from those of general-purpose translation and of translation-related research.

Either during formal training at HE institutions or by lifelong learning initiatives that foster a continuous professional development, what seems clear is that each person must be able to develop his or her information competences for critical thinking, decision-making and problem-solving purposes in order to be effective and remain competitive in the global arena we live in. In this ever learning environment, the role of tutors and more experienced colleagues needs to shift from the “sage on the stage [to] the guide on the side,” as already highlighted by King in the early 1990s (1993, p. 30) and put forward by the current EHEA.

An apt conclusion to this chapter is the following quote from O’Hagan and Ashworth about their prediction of the translators’ environment in 2002 that seems to be happening today more than ever before: “Understanding the nature of the change that is taking place all around translators and interpreters will better prepare them to face further challenges” (O’Hagan and Ashworth, 2002, p. 130).